Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
codename_47 wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
Agreed 100%. As long as it was a false arrest to begin with. :cuss:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Citizen Responds
- Thread starter Citizen
- Start date
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
imported post
As has been mentioned here, the reason we don't win is merely the money issue. People without money get their rights trampled, people with money don't worry about it becasue either the politics will recognise them, or they can simply bride the important people to look the other way.
It is proven. A criminal that has to rely on a public defender will more than likely loose vs a criminal that had the money to use a lawyer will likely get off, or with such a reduced charge it makes the publiuc defenders office seem like a joke.
Money is the mover of the law and politics. Have no money. . you are just ass out.
As has been mentioned here, the reason we don't win is merely the money issue. People without money get their rights trampled, people with money don't worry about it becasue either the politics will recognise them, or they can simply bride the important people to look the other way.
It is proven. A criminal that has to rely on a public defender will more than likely loose vs a criminal that had the money to use a lawyer will likely get off, or with such a reduced charge it makes the publiuc defenders office seem like a joke.
Money is the mover of the law and politics. Have no money. . you are just ass out.
codename_47
Regular Member
imported post
As has been mentioned here, the reason we don't win is merely the money issue. People without money get their rights trampled, people with money don't worry about it becasue either the politics will recognise them, or they can simply bride the important people to look the other way.
Oh come on now, you are giving up without trying. People who don't fight back get their rights trampled. If a cop knew he was going to be on the recieving end of a lawsuit if he steps out of line, I am pretty sure they'll adopt a distinctly different approach if they approach at all.
A criminal that has to rely on a public defender will more than likely loose vs a criminal that had the money to use a lawyer will likely get off, or with such a reduced charge it makes the publiuc defenders office seem like a joke.
I agree. Good representation more than likely results in good outcomes for the represented. That isn't the end of the story, though. If you can't get a good lawyer to represent your interests, then you need to represent them yourself. Nobody has your interests more in mind than you.
Just a FYI, I've represented myself in Federal court, and I have been represented by a lawyer and sought representation in other cases. Going to court is NOT that hard. I firmly believe everyone here who can deduce if it is legal to carry, when, and where, they can argue a case in court.
Can't afford the filing fee? File in forma paupis.
Not sure what to file or what something means? Most Federal courts even have pro-se litigant guide complete with a glossery, templates, example forms, definitions, and here they even have a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit example (the dickson 5). Just copy, paste, rename, retitle, and use appropriately.
Pro-se guides:
http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/cp/pro-se-guide.asp
http://www.constitution.org/pro-se/pro-se.htm
http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/publications/atty_book/attyhb_toc.html
Unfortunately, you can only get as much justice as you can afford.
Ever sue anyone?
As has been mentioned here, the reason we don't win is merely the money issue. People without money get their rights trampled, people with money don't worry about it becasue either the politics will recognise them, or they can simply bride the important people to look the other way.
Oh come on now, you are giving up without trying. People who don't fight back get their rights trampled. If a cop knew he was going to be on the recieving end of a lawsuit if he steps out of line, I am pretty sure they'll adopt a distinctly different approach if they approach at all.
A criminal that has to rely on a public defender will more than likely loose vs a criminal that had the money to use a lawyer will likely get off, or with such a reduced charge it makes the publiuc defenders office seem like a joke.
I agree. Good representation more than likely results in good outcomes for the represented. That isn't the end of the story, though. If you can't get a good lawyer to represent your interests, then you need to represent them yourself. Nobody has your interests more in mind than you.
Just a FYI, I've represented myself in Federal court, and I have been represented by a lawyer and sought representation in other cases. Going to court is NOT that hard. I firmly believe everyone here who can deduce if it is legal to carry, when, and where, they can argue a case in court.
Can't afford the filing fee? File in forma paupis.
Not sure what to file or what something means? Most Federal courts even have pro-se litigant guide complete with a glossery, templates, example forms, definitions, and here they even have a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit example (the dickson 5). Just copy, paste, rename, retitle, and use appropriately.
Pro-se guides:
http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/cp/pro-se-guide.asp
http://www.constitution.org/pro-se/pro-se.htm
http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/publications/atty_book/attyhb_toc.html
Unfortunately, you can only get as much justice as you can afford.
Ever sue anyone?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Michigander wrote:
1. I was referring to their authority.
2.This is a totally valid concern. Being arrested is not a minormatter.
We have rights. They're ours.We possessthem.
Whether we exercise them, and to what degree, in a police encounter is totally our choice. We each have to choose how to handle the exact cop in front of us based on the totality of the circumstances.
As long as we understand thatany given OCermay rightfully choose to forego exercising certain rights strictly forhis own individual tactical reasons, you'll get little argument from me. Sort of like saying, maybehe wants to cooperate with a minor encroachment onhis 4A rights in order to avoid a heavier encroachment or outright violation.
What I will argue against is a general advocacy to back away from exercising a right that neither acknowledges the legitimacy of the right, nor gives full factsto supportwhy the individual in a specific scenario may want to consider, for his own reasonsand his own choice,foregoing that right.But, I don't really think you meant that in your post.
Michigander wrote:
1. I was referring to their authority.
2.This is a totally valid concern. Being arrested is not a minormatter.
We have rights. They're ours.We possessthem.
Whether we exercise them, and to what degree, in a police encounter is totally our choice. We each have to choose how to handle the exact cop in front of us based on the totality of the circumstances.
As long as we understand thatany given OCermay rightfully choose to forego exercising certain rights strictly forhis own individual tactical reasons, you'll get little argument from me. Sort of like saying, maybehe wants to cooperate with a minor encroachment onhis 4A rights in order to avoid a heavier encroachment or outright violation.
What I will argue against is a general advocacy to back away from exercising a right that neither acknowledges the legitimacy of the right, nor gives full factsto supportwhy the individual in a specific scenario may want to consider, for his own reasonsand his own choice,foregoing that right.But, I don't really think you meant that in your post.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
codename_47 wrote:
I'm sure the subject has enough value and depth to deserve its own thread.
codename_47 wrote:
Some interesting advice.
I'm sure the subject has enough value and depth to deserve its own thread.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
Theseus wrote:
In forma pauperis (IFP) is a legal term derived from the Latin phrase in the character or manner of a pauper.[1][/suP] In the United States, the IFP designation is given by both state and federal courts to someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or a criminal defense.[2][/suP] The status is usually granted by a judge without a hearing, and entitles the person to a waiver of normal costs, and sometimes in criminal cases the appointment of counsel. While court imposed costs such as filing fees are waived, the litigant is still responsible for others' costs incurred in bringing the action such, as deposition and witness fees.
According to American Constitutional Law by Otis H. Stephens and John M. Scheb, approximately two-thirds of writ of certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court are filed in forma pauperis (27). This is because the majority of persons filing a writ in forma pauperis are imprisoned.
IFP status is usually granted in connection to pro se petitioners, but the two concepts are separate and distinct.
Theseus wrote:
In forma pauperis (IFP) is a legal term derived from the Latin phrase in the character or manner of a pauper.[1][/suP] In the United States, the IFP designation is given by both state and federal courts to someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or a criminal defense.[2][/suP] The status is usually granted by a judge without a hearing, and entitles the person to a waiver of normal costs, and sometimes in criminal cases the appointment of counsel. While court imposed costs such as filing fees are waived, the litigant is still responsible for others' costs incurred in bringing the action such, as deposition and witness fees.
According to American Constitutional Law by Otis H. Stephens and John M. Scheb, approximately two-thirds of writ of certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court are filed in forma pauperis (27). This is because the majority of persons filing a writ in forma pauperis are imprisoned.
IFP status is usually granted in connection to pro se petitioners, but the two concepts are separate and distinct.
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Basically, what I'm in favor of, is sometimes but not always giving out basic and extremely pertinant facts in a hostile police encounter, but only before Miranda rights are read (if they even ever are), just like Dave did. And even then, I would only say these things once or twice, and if the cop ignored or disbelieved me, I would shut up.
As a rule, if read Miranda warnings, or if the cop isn't paying attention or is a total jerk, I'd say it's definitely time to can it.
Citizen wrote:
Basically, what I'm in favor of, is sometimes but not always giving out basic and extremely pertinant facts in a hostile police encounter, but only before Miranda rights are read (if they even ever are), just like Dave did. And even then, I would only say these things once or twice, and if the cop ignored or disbelieved me, I would shut up.
As a rule, if read Miranda warnings, or if the cop isn't paying attention or is a total jerk, I'd say it's definitely time to can it.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
codename_47 wrote:
I don't think anyone would disagree with the thought that "going to court is not that hard" - it's the WINNING that's tough! ($$$)
As for the filing fee - so, you file a lawsuit for free... - see above.
If you think you've found a dandy way for "us" RKBA people to file AND be successful, pleasestart a new thread, describing in detail the circumstances one would have to endure, and the path and methods one would have to employ to win, pro-se.
As Citizen said, such a threadwould be well worth it - anda real-life example would be dandy!
codename_47 wrote:
I don't think anyone would disagree with the thought that "going to court is not that hard" - it's the WINNING that's tough! ($$$)
As for the filing fee - so, you file a lawsuit for free... - see above.
If you think you've found a dandy way for "us" RKBA people to file AND be successful, pleasestart a new thread, describing in detail the circumstances one would have to endure, and the path and methods one would have to employ to win, pro-se.
As Citizen said, such a threadwould be well worth it - anda real-life example would be dandy!
codename_47
Regular Member
imported post
If you think you've found a dandy way for "us" RKBA people to file AND be successful, pleasestart a new thread, describing in detail the circumstances one would have to endure, and the path and methods one would have to employ to win, pro-se.
Shoot, I think I might.
If you think you've found a dandy way for "us" RKBA people to file AND be successful, pleasestart a new thread, describing in detail the circumstances one would have to endure, and the path and methods one would have to employ to win, pro-se.
Shoot, I think I might.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Ifyou do, please provide a link here!
Ifyou do, please provide a link here!
codename_47
Regular Member
imported post
Lawsuits: the OTHER form of self defense:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/13528.html
Lawsuits: the OTHER form of self defense:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/13528.html
unreconstructed1
Regular Member
imported post
while I haven't been stopped while carrying, I would say my same basic attitudes would surface. be entirely pleasent with the officer until his demeanor deems otherwise, and then remember the 5 words.
while I haven't been stopped while carrying, I would say my same basic attitudes would surface. be entirely pleasent with the officer until his demeanor deems otherwise, and then remember the 5 words.